Search form

Morality Exists Despite Religion

Many religious folks argue that while science can explain much of the natural world, some issues are simply outside of the scientific realm, the classic example of which would be morality. The late Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould formalized this position via his Non-Overlapping Magisteria Principle. The argument goes something like this: Without a final arbiter (ergo God), how could humans have an absolute sense of what is right or wrong? Morality would apparently disintegrate into a relativistic mélange of “arbitrary” rules of conduct. I shall explore this position in today’s post.

1. In two earlier posts (see here and here), I demonstrated the extraordinarily contradictory positions taken by religions on every imaginable issue of human import, let alone the fact that there are thousands of religions and Gods. Which God/religion should one use to guide his/her moral system?

Let’s take a few examples: Is homosexuality an immoral abomination? Some Anglican and Lutheran denominations condone same-sex unions whereas the mainstream position of the Abrahamic religions is that homosexuality is deeply sinful and immoral. What about mating systems? What does God consider to be moral in this domain? Well, if you are Mormon or Muslim, God finds it perfectly moral that a man might take multiple women as wives while Judaism and Christianity believe in monogamous unions as sanctified by God. What about the moral precepts associated with the treatment of animals? Again, God seems to have completely different moral precepts depending on whether you are Jewish (Kosher slaughter rituals), Muslim (Halal slaughter rituals), Jain (the use of brooms whilst walking to ensure that you do not inadvertently step on insects), or Hindu (do not slaughter cows). What about the moral codes associated with the treatment of individuals arising from different faiths? Are we all equal under God’s dominion? Read the precepts of Sharia Law and let us know if God is equally appreciative of Muslims and the Kuffar (non-Muslims). As a matter of fact, according to the Sharia, a moral transgression (and associated legal punishment) is more or less severe depending on the faith of the perpetrator and victim. This does not sound very moral according to our Western liberal democratic values. What about the proper treatment of insolent children? The Bible is quite clear…stone them to death. Most contemporary Americans find slavery to be a morally grotesque and repugnant practice. How do we reconcile the latter aversion with the fact that the Abrahamic religions are all quite clear that the practice of slavery is perfectly acceptable under specific contexts (and hence moral)? I could list an endless list of additional examples stemming from the 10,000 documented religions but I suspect that you get the point.

Incidentally, I have never received a reply from a religious person as to how to resolve this conundrum of religious contradictions other than to state: “Well, the other 9,999 religions are false. I know this to be true because my religion is the correct one. It states so in my holy book.” Ah, the power of logic and reason.

2. There are endless instantiations of moral, compassionate, and kind acts that are committed by atheists. How are such non-believers able to engage in such acts without a belief in any supernatural deity? Is it that God in His infinite benevolence has imbued the non-believers with moral sentiments notwithstanding their rejection of His infinite splendor? Do most people refrain from killing, raping, committing pedophilic acts, torturing puppies, and setting their neighbors’ houses on fire (for fun) because these acts have been codified as religiously forbidden (by the way, many religious moral codes implicitly if not explicitly condone such acts!)? Would we all engage in nihilistic crime sprees of unimaginable depravity lest we were guided by religion? And again, which religion should we turn to for this moral guidance? Recall that religions agree on very little even the circumstances under which it is permitted to kill another.

3. Countless philosophers and scientists (including no lesser a man than Charles Darwin) have offered very compelling scientific-based arguments to explain the evolution of morality (especially in the context of social species). Hence, to repeatedly utter the banal canard that morality is outside the purview of science is astonishingly false. Innumerable books and scientific articles have been written to explain the evolution of morality, empathy, kindness, cooperation, altruism, parental love, romantic love, love for one's friends, and numerous other emotions that constitute integral elements of our moral fortitude.

Bottom line: Morality exists outside of religion. As a matter of fact, religion does nothing short but create a complete relativistic conundrum as to how to lead a moral life. Most individuals are endowed with the capacity to be moral (psychopaths are void of some important moral sentiments) without the requisite belief in an invisible deity.

This is an excellent post worth discussing. Thank you for raising the issue. While I agree with many of your other posts, I respectfully disagree with this one. Let's get one point out the way quickly. It's true that individuals can be moral apart from any religious belief. That has been shown by countless examples, even in the Torah (e.g., Rahab). To apply this thinking across a whole society or societies raises certain problems.

Let's apply a thought experiment. The only time this has been tested—and I know you as a scientist like to rely on empirical evidence— is with the history Marxism, a secular faith. Well, its results are not only anti-human but also morally horrific, to say the least.

That Marxism is a secular ideology that has yielded many evil consequences does not speak to my point. Both atheists and religious folks alike have the capacity to commit evil acts. The point is whether a moral code of conduct needs to be revealed by a deity or whether morality is an evolved system that is an integral element of our human nature. Stalin might have been an evil atheist but this does not shed light on whether morality is revealed or evolved. If this were the litmus test then many more religious folks would fail your test, as there are many more individuals who have committed evil acts in the name of religion in comparison to those who have done so in the name of atheism (almost none).

Saying marxism is to blame for peoples deaths is to say christianity is to blame for peoples deaths as well, you know that right? Should we get rid of that 'evil' religion as well?

And capitalism is juts as bad it kills suffocation, suicides, depression, health problems as a result of stress in capitalist society. Not to forget the wars. You have a very twisted and limited view of the world.

I know that you would like to frame the discussion to your narrow point, re: evolved morality versus revealed morality. The comments reflect the position taken, and besides, you can't directly prove your point, nor can I on how morality originally formed. It's a matter of faith. So, the discussion moves to a more interesting philosophical one: on belief and ideology, and the effects on society. After all, that;s what really matters for socirty as a whole.

Now, Marxism is an ideology that is anti-religious, and holds no belief in a deity. Its morality comes from human-inspired sources. That is why it is important to examine some of its outcomes. According to various academic sources, Marxist-inspired communism has contributed to the following deaths; the numbers are conservative estimates:
· 65 million in the People’s Republic of China;
· 20 million in the Soviet Union;
· 2 million in Cambodia
· 2 million in North Korea

The number of deaths for regimes that declared themselves atheistic approach 90 million. All of the above states share atheism as its central founding tenet, and to suggest otherwise is to counter their own stated beliefs in Marxism, which disallows any religious faith. Such defines atheism. As has been well documented, communism is an ideology that has removed all religious belief and affiliation, and has replaced it with belief and faith in the State and its leaders, usually one primary one (i.e., Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Kim Sung). Thus, it has been described as a secular faith.

So, why is this important? This is an important when considering the ramifications of what happens when you remove religious traditions, particularly monotheistic faiths, from a nation. Can you easily dismiss this? What are the numbers for religion in the 20th century?

As I suggested in my original comment, individuals can and do act morally without any belief in a deity; the problem comes when extrapolating this result to a nation. As such, there is no guarantee that atheism would produce a more moral people. In fact, the evidence is quite strong to suggest the opposite.

The regimes that you speak of killed an astonishing number of people for reasons that have NOTHING to do with atheism. That the states in question were officially non-religious does not imply that the atrocities were committed in the name and defense of their non-belief. The Soviet Union might have also decided that the country is an official supporter of the Montreal Canadians. One would not then argue that their atrocities were committed in the name of the Habs. In order to implement their totalitarian ideology, they had to eradicate alternate totalitarian ideologies (ergo religion!). Let us suppose that the police arrests a predatory serial killer who turns out to be an atheist. Would you then argue that this proves that his crimes were due to his non-belief?

Now if we are going to play the "who killed more people" game, by which logic are you allowed to restrict the game to the 20th century? If we take a longer view of history (as anyone who wishes to play this game must) then religion has yielded an astonishingly greater number of deaths than atheism. No one kills in the name of non-belief. Hundreds of millions of people have been killed in the name of religion. This is not a game that you should be anxious to play as religion is the unequivocal loser in such a contest.

Incidentally, the scientific proof for morality as an evolved system is overwhelmingly greater than that offered by religious folks. If you are not moved by the scientific evidence, you should be much lesser moved by the religion "proof."

One more small point. According to Adherents.com, there are 4,300 designated religions; yet, 98% of all religious adherents follow 22 major religions. In the major religions, I am sure there is agreement on the fundamental moral imperatives that touch on social harmony (i.e., murder, theft, adultery and property rights.). Such is telling, wouldn't you agree?

I am afraid that there is no agreement on the fundamental moral imperatives that you speak of. Rape is defined very differently in today's Western legal traditions as compared to numerous religious traditions. Adultery is punishable by death in numerous religious traditions but not in our Western moral compass. Slaves (human property) is allowed in the Bible (and the Qur'an) but was abolished in the United States. Hence, I am unsure which moral imperatives you are referring to.

As I explained in my post, there are innumerable religions, many of which postulate edicts of morality that are diametrically contradictory. Do you have a solution for this problem? If I rely on God for my morality, I will end up with different moral prescriptions depending on who my God is. This issue is deeply troublesome for those postulating a religious foundation for morality. One man's God is another's silly superstition.

Religions evolve. For example, the edicts that you cited and which are found in the Torah are not followed by any branch of 21st century Judaism, even among the most zealous ultra-Orthodox. That's right no multiple wives, no stoning of children, no slaves. So, yes, I have a solution. What stops you from finding a religious tradition that fits your thinking? Is there no modern religion that appeals to you?

Hi Gad,
You have given us the central and succinctly presented points.
Your caption is quite funny, if one reads "despite" as "in spite of," as I do.
I find that in spite of the fact that individuals participate very diversely in institutionalized religion, monotheism above all promotes a subordinate relationship with a somewhat dangerous, unreliable authority figure, one who is nonetheless likable and even approachable the longer one gets to know h(H)im. I frankly think that for many individuals this commonly known experience of faith or reverence resembles not Love but Stockholm Syndrome. Many people tell me that they pray in order to give thanks that they remain relatively safe and unharmed. A prayer like "Thank you for not letting my brother's cancer kill him, Thou are most loving" is not an expression of love, but the cajole of a vulnerable captive. I will go so far as to say that monotheism as Stockholm Syndrome unfortunately replicates the belief system of the battered spouse. One almost always hears from such unlucky individuals "As long as he doesn't [beat the kids, get drunk and beat me, use the grocery money for drugs] we're doing just fine."

A friend in law enforcement tells me that the curricula in some police academies in the U.S. teach that morality is acquired solely through religious identity. Atheism or agnosticism are confused with nihilism and depravity. I hope that you can extend your influence to this community and set things straight.

Last, I have frequent professional contact with a self-described psychopath (I don't disagree) who regrets that modern society and its rules continually prevent him from doing enormous harm to others, to Nature, and to the future members of our species. He wishes that he could have had a chance to kill off some of the best known extinct species with his own gun. He wishes he could have participated in murder and pillage in religious wars. He is a devout "God-fearing" Catholic, a catechism instructor not less, and the first to say that he has no internal authority whatsoever and no natural compassion, and that it is only the criminal code and the commandments that keep him out of jail. My question is, does this individual have morality or is he just saved from himself by having a set of religious instructions to live by? He recognizes somewhat enviously and bitterly, that others, atheists and otherwise, do behave and think in response to an internalized axis of morality which he lacks. My point here is that religious identity is also a lifesaving charade for the psychopath.

Isn't it a good thing that this "self-described psychopath" has been restrained, through law or religious moral code, from acting out on his fantasies or thoughts? So far, having bad or even evil thoughts is not illegal or immoral. (On another note, I am not sure if this individual meets the medical and scientific definition of psychopath, if he has some moral compass. Perhaps, Prof Saad can clarify this point.)

Dear Perry,
I can offer many reasons why religious systems are of great value to our species and I would never suggest for a minute that we try to get along without them. Although I sound like a fan of atheism, I'm also actually very religious myself, having a profound system of beliefs I share almost exclusively from within my community, and I engage in mindful practices that are nothing if not orthodox. That said, I can point out that the idea of a natural antagonism existing between atheists and believers appears to be little more than a publicity stunt currently in use by a cadre of philosophers and scientists or philosophers of science or religious philosophers whose book deals and speaking engagements and perhaps social lives depend largely upon the heated valence of the spin.
Binary thinking sells.
Prof. Saad is clearly one who dispenses with this false binary opposition.
Can we be frank? To me the degree to which a scientist or philosopher invests in either defending or dispensing with organized religion is directly proportional to the distance, in hoof steps, in which he has ventured into "The Pasture."
To clarify my own understanding as a psychologist who has studied the experience of extreme positive states - such as ecstatic bliss and the psychology of creativity - I think that mythical and spiritual experiences are highly valuable to our species for a variety of reasons, one being that they create the context for awe, humility, egolessness, and a toleration for the unknown and for oppositional beliefs. These cognitive styles produce the very best of scientists, whether or not they've discarded or set aside their crosses or tefillin or tantras along the path.
The second reason is that some attentional states are probably better for one's health and social life than others, and therefore we will very likely learn something about the value of religious behavior in our species, in the near future, as the perfected technology and methodology permit.

No one contests the fact that having faith can yield positive outcomes including refraining from otherwise committing despicable acts (as God might otherwise punish you). However, this does not directly speak to my point. I am pitting two possible origins of morality: (1) morality as a revealed truth by an omnipotent God; or (2) morality as an evolved trait that is an integral part of human nature. People can do the right thing for the wrong reasons (e.g., an individual might refrain from torturing a puppy because he believes that God might punish him/her on Judgment Day). From the puppy's perspective, the prospective torturer's faith is a blessing (forgive the pun). However, this does not imply that God exists and/or that He imbued the individual with the requisite restraint.

The morality that exists within us IS GOD. All the gods of the various religions are collective projections of that inner morality.

Without education, what ever the form of education, morality does not exist. Religion has been an effective form of morality education and until an alternative form of morality education COMPLETELY fills it's place, then religion has a place.

Is this a place to talk about psychology, or religion? Because lately it seems to be taking the stance of the religion basher...

Your question asking if this post is about psychology or religion has an obvious answer. Dr. Saad is showing that morality is an evolved psychological trait by pointing to hypocritical moral discrepancies between religions, non-religious people acting morally and scientific findings of universal human morality. You, on the other hand Simon Says, are simply declaring that god = morality. So I agree with your implicit statement that we—by this I mean you and others—would do well to discuss and debate our modern psychological understanding of morality, rather than making blind, artless declarations.

In terms of how you claim a new societal system must “completely” replace religious ones, I would confidently say that many people do not wish for this. Although religions do have some positive effects, they have many great negative effects as well. I would propose that a new system that avoid such negative religious effects as out-group disdain, intolerance for homosexuality and rapture (i.e., end of the world) worship, to name but a few. Those improvements alone would be enormous achievements.

As primitive humans, religion was our species’ first attempt at a philosophy of morality, and I am sure that it did indeed help civilize us. However, it is time for our human family to grow up and work together on improved philosophies of morality, ones that recognize our discovery of our evolved morality. Where we once had to concoct mythical stories of super-powered beings, we now have the tools to begin the search within ourselves, and discover when and why we came to be who we are. The fact is, as a young species, we could not have known where our morality came from. But now that we are awakening to our human roots, our moral stories and explanations will, and must, change accordingly.

To address the debate raised above pitting Marxism (without supernaturalism) against religions (with supernaturalism), I think Perry is absolutely right: Communism/Marxism etc. did not work. However, Communism/Marxism etc. and religions have much in common, and are both highly problematic. They are both human attempts at imposing a totalitarian moral and political system on other people. We now know that a top-down totalitarian system need not be the basis for societal morality because we have many evolved moral tendencies on which to build bottom-up.

I do wonder, however, if this is possible. Although I am now only speculating, I would venture to guess that our species has evolved a need, or want, to submit to a stronger force, whether that be animals in our distant past, humans later on, nature at any point, or supernatural beings most recently. Perhaps this is why religious people love to ask the rhetorical question, “Do you really think there is nothing higher than you?” What is more, the Christian bible is filled with references of people being “sheep”, or a “flock”. Really? Our most esteemed “prophets” thought to use a sheep metaphor to represent most human beings? I find that offensive and I hope you do as well. We are not all weak, dim-witted sheep with a strong need to submit to “something”.

To this apparent deep-seated need for constant submission, I say the following: why invent super-human myths about super-powered beings when we have much to respectfully submit to here on earth, like good mothers and fathers, family, friends, doctors, volunteers, teachers and any other flesh and blood human that makes the world a better place to live in. An evolved morality means it is in (most of) us to be good. Enjoy it.

To say that morality can exist outside of religion misses the point entirely. You're not exploring the human-God relationship deeply enough. It goes far beyond what we learn about religion and morals. Christians believe that God created all people in his image. That means he created us to be inherently similar to himself with the same emotions and capacity for love and morality. Therefore, whether we profess to be religious of any kind or not, we all have a capacity for love and morality, seated at the very God-made fabric of our being. But he gives us a choice to follow him in love, or to do whatever we want. We are not slaves to morality. It's our own choice he lets us make.

Your assertion that we are made in God's image and are moral creatures, ergo God is morality, is predicated on the existence of God. Your logic is akin to a baseball player wearing his lucky jock; his jock was made for him, his jock gives him the ability to play better than he could without it ergo the jock IS athletic ability. Now, is he right in assuming the jock gives him better athletic prowess or is he merely making a spurious association? Lets not confuse superstition with science.

Dear a-NON-imous
To say that basing one's arguement on the fact that God exists is a fallacy doesn't really work. The arguement presented implies the non-existant state of a God-being and tries to prove it by presenting the facts that morals can exist in unreligious people, hence Proving wrong everyone who states morals are controlled by a God. In rebuttal, one cannot say, "yeah, I'll also take the stance that God does not exist but prove to you that morals come from a God being, hence prove you wrong and show that God exists...."

The argument pertaining to religious morality vs. secular morality is a powerful question. Thanks for your side of the argument. While I do disagree with your conclusion, or at least the conclusion you are proposing, I have a question in regards to your premise. How can this specific morality question even be proposed? what I mean by this is - where can you look at the opposite spectrum and show that it exists? If most societies or all societies (I'm sure not of the statistics) are relgiously based - how can a moral unreligious society even be arguable? Show me a man that was untainted by religious influence (i.e. Culture, people, etc...). I'm more curious for an answer because how I see it, more assumptions have to be prososed (i.e. evolutionary theories) to produce an answer rather than facts.

One, I've seen some comments that go like, there's this group whose basis is non-religious association, It was so evil, therefore morals come from religion... Come on.
Are we sure the word Morals came about from a religious perspective? What I mean is aren't there any atheists out there who genuinely believe what Carl Marx and whoever it is you mentioned did was by definition EVIL. Where that moral compass coming from?

Being atheist is not = being immoral. Was the concept of ceteris paribus(for those familiar with this research concept meaning all things held constant) used in judging this. Could it be its their lack of morals and evil nature that made them disassociate with those whose proposed to uphold the highest morals(i.e Religious folk), by stating we do not do religion. If the preceding is true, it means they killed and are responsible for many murders because they're evil, not because of their atheistic stand.

Many psychology writers believe they can be an existence of morals without religion. But how could they know what morals are if atheism = immorality? Mhh?

Rapid Fire.

God made all things and IS God. He controls all things. Ever watched those alien movies where aliens communicate to one another telepathically? There seems to be some smart guy out there smart enough to theories that sound vibrations aren't the only means of communication available to us. Christian literature(which is the only literature that extensively explains all things even other religions) claims God 'speaks by pressing his words on our hearts-his spirit bears witness with our spirits...(quote). Hence, That sense of morals, Thats him. can morals exist without religion? Shouldn't it be can religion exist without morals?

It's the fact that God gave morals unto us in our being that we institutionalize religions and say this is the way. Those who do not want to hear their moral impression in will not want any association with institutions made to celebrate them and recognize from whom they devolve hence, the reason why the evil ones always deny any affiliation to any churches and stuff. They're do not want to celebrate that voice they have already fought and denied in them. Churches are the carriers of morals.